Extracted text (via textutil)
33226 characters
Minutes Regular City Council Meeting City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona City Council Chambers, Yuma City Hall One City Plaza, Yuma, Arizona November 5, 2025 5:30 p.m. Call to Order Mayor Nicholls called the City Council meeting to order at 5:34 p.m. Invocation/Pledge Samuel G. Loveless, Second Councilor in the Yuma Arizona Stake Presidency, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, gave the invocation. Justin Lewis, Director of Facilities Management, led the City Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. Final Call Mayor Nicholls made a final call for the submission of Speaker Request Forms for agenda related items from members of the audience. Roll Call Councilmembers Present: Martinez, Morris, McClendon, Smith, Morales, Watts, and Mayor Nicholls Councilmembers Absent: None Staffmembers Present: Acting City Administrator, John D. Simonton Director of Community Development, Alyssa Linville Senior Planner, Erika Peterson Various Department Heads or their representative City Attorney, Richard W. Files City Clerk, Lynda L. Bushong • Motion Consent Agenda Motion (McClendon/Morales): To approve the Motion Consent Agenda as recommended. Voice vote: approved 7-0. A. Approval of minutes of the following City Council meeting(s): Regular Council Meeting Minutes September 3, 2025 Regular Council Worksession Minutes September 16, 2025 Regular Council Worksession Minutes September 30, 2025 B. Executive Session Executive Sessions may be held at the next regularly scheduled Special Worksession, Regular Worksession and City Council Meeting for personnel, legal, litigation and real estate matters pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.03 Section A (1), (3), (4), and (7). (City Atty) C. Approval of Staff Recommendations • Authorize the award for a one-year locksmith supplies and services contract with the option to renew for four additional one-year periods, one year at a time, at an estimated annual expenditure of $40,000.00, depending on the appropriation of funds and satisfactory performance, to G&T Locksmith Safe Co., Yuma, Arizona. (RFB-25-207) (Facl/Purch) • Authorize the purchase of six AXS dispatch consoles, 16 backup radios and related equipment and services, for the Emergency Dispatch Backup Center using a Cooperative Purchase Agreement through the State of Arizona, from Motorola Solutions, Chicago, Illinois for a total expenditure of $834,041.45. (CPA-26-120) (Eng/YPD/Purch) • Authorize the purchase of five annual renewals of the Bonfire Procurement Software Subscriptions from Euna Solutions, Inc., Sandy Springs, Georgia, utilizing a Cooperative Purchase Agreement through Sourcewell contract, for an estimated annual expenditure of $44,522.00. (CPA-26-130) (IT/Purch) • Authorize the purchase of Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR) and subscriptions utilizing a Cooperative Purchase Agreement originated by Houston-Galveston Area Council, for a five-year agreement with Motorola, Chicago, Illinois for an estimated amount of $130, 094.40. (CPA-26-115) (YPD) • Authorize the purchase and delivery of Decorative Light Poles and Decorative Lighting for the 200 block of Main Street through WESCO Distribution, Phoenix, Arizona utilizing the Sourcewell Contract for an expenditure of $151,210.24. (CPA-26-140) (Eng/Purch) • Authorize the purchase of 9-1-1 Call Handling Equipment and Services for the Emergency Dispatch Backup Center using a Cooperative Purchase Agreement through the State of Arizona, from vendor AT&T, Bedminster, New Jersey for total expenditure of $394,655.78. (CPA-26-142) (Eng/YPD/Purch) • Authorize the purchase of one Pierce Velocity PUC Pumper, utilizing the Cooperative Purchase Agreement originated by the Houston-Galveston Area Council, at a cost of $1,431,037.83 to: Hughes Fire Equipment, Inc. / Pierce Manufacturing, Inc., Appleton, Wisconsin. (CPA-26-126) (YFD/Purch) • Authorize the City Administrator to execute Change Order No. 1 to the construction management services contract for the Desert Dunes Water Reclamation Facility Capacity Increase Project in the amount of $1,727,603.20 for a total cost not to exceed $4,346,471.20 to Consultant Engineering Inc. (CEI) of Phoenix, Arizona. (RFQ-22-201) (Eng/Purch) • Authorize a contract increase for additional bid alternates to East Mesa Community Park, Phase 1, from bond and donation funding in the amount of $3,018,556.03 for a total expenditure of $20,971,593.72 to Gutierrez Canales Engineering, PC, Yuma, Arizona. (RFQ-23-258) (Utl/Eng/Purch) • Authorize the donation of various safety equipment that is no longer needed at the Yuma Fire Department to the Los Algodones, Mexicali B.C. Fire Department. (YFD/Purch) • Authorize the renewal of the annual software subscription for a total expenditure of $179,965.61 to: Tyler Technologies, Inc., Dallas, TX. (RFP 2011000118) (Fin/IT/Purch) • Authorize the City Administrator to execute all necessary documents to adopt the Mutual Aid Agreement between the City of Yuma, on behalf of the Yuma Fire Department, and Rural Metro Fire Department, Inc., for cooperative fire protection and emergency medical services. (YFD) • Approve the final plat for the Livingston Ranch Unit No. 4 Subdivision. The property is located at the northeast intersection of 38th Street and the Avenue B ½ alignment. (Cmty Dev/Cmty Plng) • Approve the final plat for Desert Sands Unit 5 Subdivision. The property is located near the intersection of 45th Street and Buckthorn Drive. (Cmty Dev/Cmty Plng) • Ratify settlement of the claim submitted by Josefina Mendoza. (Atty) • Resolution Consent Agenda Resolution R2025-099 – Order Improvements: Municipal Improvement District No. 129 Desert Ridge Townhomes (order improvements for Municipal Improvement District (MID) No. 129 to serve Desert Ridge Townhomes, to maintain landscaping improvements within, near and adjacent to the retention and detention basins and parkings and parkways and related facilities together with appurtenant structures (Landscape Improvements); declaring the Landscape Improvements to be of more than local or ordinary benefit, and that the costs of the Landscape Improvements for MID No. 129 shall be assessed upon the properties in MID No. 129 shall be assessed upon the properties in MID No. 129 according to acreage; providing that the proposed Landscape Improvements shall be performed in accordance with Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) Title 48, Chapter 4, Article 2) (Cmty Dev/Cmty Plng) Morris declared a conflict of interest on Resolution R2025-099 and left the dais. Motion (Smith/McClendon): To adopt Resolution R2025-099 as recommended. Bushong displayed the following title(s): Resolution R2025-099 A resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, ordering improvements for Municipal Improvement District No. 129, serving Desert Ridge Townhomes to operate, maintain and repair landscaping improvements included within, near and adjacent to the retention and detention basins and parkings and parkways and related facilities together with appurtenant structures of Desert Ridge Townhomes, as more particularly described in this resolution, and declaring the landscape improvements to be of more than local or ordinary public benefit, and the cost of the landscape improvements shall be assessed upon Municipal Improvement District No. 129; improvements shall be performed under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) Title 48, Chapter 4, Article 2 (located at the southeast corner of Avenue 7½ E and 24th Street) (Cmty Dev/Cmty Plng) Roll call vote: adopted 6-0-1, Morris abstaining due to conflict of interest. Morris returned to the dais. ____________ Motion (Morris/Morales): To adopt the Resolution Consent Agenda as recommended with the exception of Resolution R2025-099 which was approved by a previous vote. Bushong displayed the following titles: Resolution R2025-094 A resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, authorizing and approving the adoption and execution of a Wastewater Treatment Service Agreement with the Winterhaven County Water District (district may discharge an average daily flow of up to 55,000 gallons per day of wastewater to the Figueroa Avenue Water Pollution Control Facility for treatment) (Utl) Resolution R2025-096 A resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, supporting the application for “Arizona Commerce Authority (ACA) Economic Strength Project (ESP) Grant” to implement the roadway improvement project (funds to advance the design and construction of the roadway near Interstate 8 and Avenue 4E) (Cmty Dev/Nbhd Svcs) Resolution R2025-097 A resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, authorizing and approving a development agreement permitting the deferral of City of Yuma Development Fees and Water and Sanitary Sewer Capacity Charges for Saguaro Unit No. 6 Subdivision (deferral for a period of three years upon collection of a $500.00 administrative fee) (Eng) Resolution R2025-098 A resolution of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement between the Arizona Department of Housing and the City of Yuma for the enforcement of installation standards for manufactured homes and factory-built buildings (assisting Arizona Department of Housing with inspections of manufactured homes and factory-built buildings to ensure consistency with the installation standards) (Cmty Dev/Bldg Sfty) Roll call vote: adopted 7-0. • Adoption of Ordinances Consent Agenda Speaker Tom Pancrazi, City resident, expressed concern about the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) when a permitted use is within 600 feet of residential property. He noted that this creates delays and costs for industrial users, especially as residential development encroaches on industrial areas. He recommended removing this requirement to make the process smoother and fairer for existing industrial properties. Discussion • When an industrial property is located within 600 feet of a residential property it is required to obtain a conditional use permit for any industrial use. This requirement applies to both residential zoning districts and residential uses. (Mayor Nicholls/Linville) • Any Industrial Use within the Light Industrial zoning would require a CUP, including businesses coming in to replace existing businesses, both within Light Industrial zoning. (Morris/Linville) • The section of the code has been around for many years. There was an update around 2017 to add the requirements for both residential zoning and residential use, fixing issues of properties zoned residential when in fact were not residential in nature. (Morris/Linville) • The City of Yuma contains a great amount of legacy industrial zoning surrounded by residential areas. Therefore, causing concern among staff if the zoning is removed entirely. (Morris/Linville) • At least one hazardous recycling facility located near residential areas has been previously denied a CUP. However, there are significant industrial zones along 8th Street and 14th Avenue, mingled with residential areas and we have also had several Community Improvement Projects (CIPs) in that region, and none have been denied. (Morris/Linville) • The ordinance can be adopted tonight, and the code can be modified at a future date to allow for a more in-depth discussion about the code. (McClendon/Simonton) • There are possibilities for additional approvals beyond a zoning modification. It is possible to implement blanket Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) for specific industrial properties, allowing them to avoid the need for a CUP every time a new use is introduced. This approach has been utilized in other cases. (Watts/Linville) • A property operating commercial use with commercial zoning and within 600 feet of residential property does not need a CUP. (Morris/Linville) Motion (Morris/Mayor Nicholls): To adopt the Ordinances Consent Agenda as recommended. Bushong displayed the following title(s): Ordinance O2025-038 An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, amending Chapter 154 of the Yuma City Code, as amended, relating to zoning code to update development regulations and expand the allowable uses withing the Light Industrial (L-I) and Heavy Industrial (H-I) zoning districts (text amendment will update the list of permitted, conditional, and prohibited uses within the Light Industrial (L-I) and Heavy Industrial (H-I) Zoning Districts) (Cmty Dev/Cmty Plng) Roll call vote: adopted 7-0. • Introduction of Ordinances Bushong displayed the following title(s): Ordinance O2025-044 An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, authorizing and approving a lease of City-owned property with Yuma Multiversity Campus Corporation, DBA Elevate Southwest, A 501-C3 non-profit Arizona Corporation (interim use of the vacant facility activates a City-owned property while advancing the long-term vision for a regional Innovation Hub) (Admn) Ordinance O2025-045 An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, amending Chapter 154 of the Yuma City code, rezoning certain property located in the Light Industrial/Infill Overlay (L-I/IO) District to the Medium Density Residential/Infill Overlay (R-2/IO) District, and amending the zoning map to conform with the rezoning (rezoning three properties along 1st Avenue between 12th Street and 13th Street. Approximately 1.29 acres) (Cmty Dev/Cmty Plng) Ordinance O2025-046 An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona, creating Title 19, Chapter 196 of the Yuma City Code relating to cross-connection control; repealing conflicting provisions; and establishing a penalty for violations thereof (moving regulatory provisions from a resolution to a municipal ordinance) (Utl) • Public Hearing and Related Items MC 2025-174 – Annexation Area No. ANEX-44331-2025 Cha Cha, LLC (This is a public hearing to consider the annexation of properties located west of the southwest corner of 40th Street and Avenue 4 ½ E.) (ANEX-44331-2025) (Cmty Dev/Cmty Plng) Mayor Nicholls opened the public hearing at 6:00 p.m. Peterson presented the following information: • This is an annexation request from Cha Cha, LLC for property located west of the southwest corner of 40th Street and 4 ½ E with the intent to market the site for industrial development • Annexation area is approximately 65.86 acres that were previously used as citrus groves • The annexation area contains four parcels, the adjacent 40th Street right-of-way and Avenue 4 ½ E right-of-way. • The four parcels are respectively owned by • Cha Cha, LLC, parcel 724-02-003, which is undeveloped • Tangerine & Tonic, LLC, parcel 724-01-007, citrus groves • Subject of Pre-annexation Development Agreement: R2025-77, adopted July 16, 2025 • JD&B Yuma R P, LLC, parcel 724-09-002, citrus groves • Subject of Pre-annexation Development Agreement: R2025-80, adopted August 6, 2025 • Humane Society of Yuma, Inc., parcel 724-02-004, is undeveloped • This parcel is included in the annexation process to provide a seamless annexation • General Plan land use designation: Agriculture/Industrial • County Zoning: Light Industrial (L-I) and Rural Area 10 (RA-10) • Zoning upon annexation: • Light Industrial (L-I) for APNs 724-02-003 and 724-02-004 • Agriculture (AG) for APNs 724-09-002 and 724-01-007 • Infrastructure: Future connections to City utilities will be required Motion (Smith/McClendon): To close the Public Hearing. Voice vote: approved 7-0. The Public Hearing closed at 6:02 p.m. Discussion • Any new developments would prompt infrastructure to be put in place. The parcel owner who will develop on the single parcel is required to extend any needed utilities. The roads on 40th Street are currently paved and any sections inside the parcels would be the responsibility of the property owner. If annexing the full right-of-way, the City can maintain them. How long before the development is to take place is unknown at this time. (Morris/Peterson) ____________ Resolution R2025-100 – Minor General Plan Amendment: Southwest Corner of 17th Street and Madison Avenue (Following a public hearing, approve the request to amend the City of Yuma General Plan to change the land use designation from Mixed Use to High Density Residential) (Cmty Dev/Cmty Plng) Morris declared a conflict of interest on Resolution R2025-100 due to his firm’s involvement with the project and left the dais. Mayor Nicholls opened the public hearing at 6:04 p.m. Peterson presented the following information: • This is a minor general plan amendment for the property located on the southwest corner of 17th Street and Madison Avenue • Property currently zoned Light Industrial • Proposed Change: Mixed Use to High Density Residential • Area is approximately .48 acres in size • Surrounding Land Uses: • North: Light Industrial • South: Light Industrial • East: Light Industrial and Low Density Residential • West: Light Industrial • Development Potential: • Pursue a rezone to High Density Residential (R-3) for multi-family dwellings • Dwelling Units – Potential development of 14 dwelling units • Population – Potential expected population of 11 to 25 people • Neighborhood Meeting • August 7, 2025, at City Hall • Neighbors within 660 feet of property notified • Nine neighbors in attendance • Seventeen neighbors called or emailed letters in opposition • Comments regarding compatibility, traffic, noise, parking • Subject property is within the General Plan’s Mesa Heights revitalization area and Arizona Avenue and 16th Street growth area which both encourage infill development that can be served by existing infrastructure in the area • Community Planning staff recommended approval of this request • The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of this request at the Public Hearing on October 13, 2025 Speakers Amanda DeLara, City resident, expressed concerns about the proposed residential development near her workplace, CrossFit Yuma, located in the southwest corner from the property in question. She cited high traffic volumes, including frequent 18-wheeler activity, and significant noise from the gym operating from 5 a.m. to 8 p.m. as factors that could negatively impact residents’ quality of life. She urged the Council to consider the potential effects on families with young children and overall neighborhood safety before approving the amendment. Maribel Acosta, City resident, and owner of Anthony A. Martino & Co. (AAMCO) Transmissions, located at the corner of First Avenue and 17th Street, expressed concerns about the proposed amendment’s impact on her long-standing business of 45 years. She cited potential issues with reduced parking and customer access. She also mentioned a recent incident involving a police complaint about a blocked driveway, which she believes may have stemmed from a lack of communication with the project developer. Acosta noted that the developer has not engaged with neighboring businesses or shared project plans. She also raised concerns about how changes to CUP (Conditional Use Permit) regulations could affect future business decisions, such as leasing or selling. She concluded by stating that the project may lead to increased conflict and is not compatible with the existing business environment. Jennifer Ingram, City resident, shared concerns about traffic and safety near her workplace due to current congestion and the potential impact of a new apartment complex. AAMCO uses 17th Street for overflow parking and vehicle testing because of limited space. She noted that the area already sees heavy traffic from construction, school buses, and business activity. She’s especially worried about the safety of children if more residents move in, and how new traffic rules like crosswalks could further reduce available space. She emphasized that AAMCO has been part of the neighborhood for 45 years and asked that these safety and operational concerns be considered. Keith Dennis, City resident, expressed concerns about the proposed development near his property, which has been in his family since 1958. Although his construction business has slowed, the property is still used by tenants operating large trucks, including refrigerated semis that run continuously. He emphasized safety concerns on 17th Street, which is narrow and heavily used by trucks and parked vehicles. He also raised concerns about future property value impacts and the added burden of CUP requirements if he decides to sell. While supportive of affordable housing in general, Dennis believes this location is not a good fit due to the surrounding businesses and traffic conditions. Patrick K. Hodges Jr., City resident, stated that the proposed residential development is not compatible with the surrounding area, which is primarily zoned for light industrial use. He noted that while a few nearby homes were rezoned in the past for financing purposes, the neighborhood has maintained a cooperative, business-focused environment. He expressed concern that new residents may complain about existing industrial noise, such as from nearby CrossFit operations, which could unfairly impact current businesses. Tom Pancrazi, City resident, opposed the proposed residential development, citing incompatibility with nearby industrial uses. He expressed concern about noise complaints from future residents due to early-morning activity at the CrossFit facility, including music and equipment noise. He noted that the Zoning Code offers little protection for existing businesses and that the project would create costly burdens, delays, and potential property devaluation. Pancrazi emphasized his long-standing involvement in local housing projects and urged the City Council to find a more suitable location for this development. Jose Salazar, City resident, and owner and developer of the property in question, spoke in support of the rezoning. He stated that the proposed high-density housing aligns with the City’s 2022 General Plan goals, including affordable and diverse housing in redevelopment areas. He noted the site has existing infrastructure and is surrounded by residential uses, making the current light industrial zoning outdated. Salazar emphasized that rezoning is key to encouraging housing development and that noise concerns can be addressed during the design process. He is committed to working with City staff to optimize the project. Motion (Morales/Watts): To close the Public Hearing. Voice vote: approved 7-0. The Public Hearing closed at 6:27 p.m. Discussion • While the property is being considered for high-density zoning, the final number of units will be determined based on what is realistically feasible. (McClendon/Salazar) • A blanket Conditional Use Permit (CUP) could be applied to the interested property owners to identify allowable uses now and in the future to continue their existing operations, future sales, or to lease for other commercial uses. This has been done in other areas of the community. (Nicholls/ Linville) • If a property is purchased with an existing CUP, and the intended use matches the approved use under that permit, the new owner may continue operating under the existing CUP. (Smith/Linville) • CUP might be a short-term option, but CUP’s lack long-term protection, and they expire. A Development Agreement with the City is preferred to provide long-term protection. It is also preferred to include commercial uses to avoid needing a CUP. (Smith/Pancrazi) • If a CUP does not continue to be used for a period of one or two years, the CUP will expire. (Mayor Nicholls/Linville) • A few CUP’s have previously been processed through development agreements. This process will help address concerns about the permit’s long-term stability. (Mayor Nicholls/ Files) • A property wall has been discussed in relation to the noise from the CrossFit building. The wall is a standard-height block wall, and the building uses modern, sound-absorbing materials to help with blocking out noise. Also, it was noted that tenants would be informed prior to signing a lease that the business operates during specific hours, ensuring transparency. There was also a suggestion that tenants might be gym members themselves, which could reduce potential complaints. (Watts/ Salazar) • In 2021 the legislature repealed the renters tax credit. The statute currently states that only the property owner, specifically those who own the property out right, can request relief for nuisances or seek a rebate on property taxes. Also, the statute is very specific about what issues it covers. It targets certain areas like public alcohol consumption, but noise is not included. There’s no case law that has expanded it to cover noise. While someone could try to argue for that, it hasn’t happened yet. Generally, statutes are interpreted based on what they explicitly say, not what they might imply. (Mayor Nicholls/Files) • After reviewing the proposition, it was speculated if noise could be considered “offensive to the senses.” It seems possible a lawyer might argue that. While renters may not qualify for credits, property owners could, especially if noise affects their ability to rent out spaces—whether from the gym, mechanics, or other nearby sources. (Smith) • General Plan amendments are not conditioned. Conditions would be added at the zoning state. The conditions could run with land in the event the property is sold. (Mayor Nicholls/Linville) • The proposal will add eight or nine housing units to the area, but the high-density development on the corner could negatively impact the existing businesses where owners have heavily invested and also provided jobs to families, especially the industrial activity and mechanics. The significant opposition from the community to amend the General Plan has been taken into consideration and as the proposal currently stands the amendment would not be allowed. (Morales) • Delaying the amendment for the opportunity to get a blanket CUP seems to be a good middle ground. Salazar will have to wait a little longer for his project, but at least the process will be started on the CUP. (Mayor Nicholls) • There are a few items Salazar still needs to address from the Pre-Development meeting before the amendment is voted on, giving the impression that there is not a rush on the project. Therefore, delaying the project is supported. (Morales) • Property owners within 600 feet of the project area can be included in the blanket CUP if they choose to participate. Hence why the project will be delayed instead of approved, giving property owners the opportunity to participate in the blanket CUP. (Smith/Mayor Nicholls) • Salazar attended both the public hearing and the planning and zoning meetings. Residents in the area did not attend the meetings or provide input about the project, it was mostly the business owners in the area that provided their thoughts. (Martinez/Salazar) • Potential residents will be made aware of the noise from the surrounding businesses before signing a rental agreement. (Martinez/Salazar) • Appreciation was expressed to allow further discussion/clarification of the process, as well as addressing the potential impacts raised by the business owners. City Council recognizes the importance of affordable housing and views this as a possible opportunity to add more attainable units (Martinez) • The mixed use land use designation currently permits several zoning districts. One of those zoning districts is the R-2, which is the medium density residential that does permit duplexes and some multifamily housing with the mixed use land use designation. The developer for this property would get between five and 10 dwelling units an acre, so the property owner could choose to rezone the property to a zoning district that is permitted by right within that land use designation to R-2. (McClendon/Peterson) • The land use designation for the property is currently mixed use. If the designation is left as is, the developer will need to rezone the area to build any residential dwellings as it is currently zoned as light industrial. However, R-2 is a zoning district permitted by right within the land use designation of mixed use. (McClendon/Peterson) • Parking spaces per unit are based on the number of bedrooms each unit would have. A two-bedroom unit would require a one and a half parking space. Required parking must be maintained on site for multifamily development. Working with Salazar on previous projects, he provides two parking spaces per unit. (Mayor Nicholls/Peterson) • It should be cautioned to label the proposal as affordable housing, noting there is no guarantee of affordability and that details such as whether units would be market rate or HUD-subsidized remain unclear. While acknowledging the addition of housing units, it is questioned whether the project would address the City’s housing or affordable housing challenges. Input from the applicant and local businesses is appreciated, but without a delay for further review, the proposal will not be supported at this time. (Smith) Motion (Mayor Nicholls/Smith): To delay the decision on resolution R2025-100 to the December 3, 2025, City Council meeting. Voice vote: approved 6-0-1, Morris abstaining due to conflict of interest. • APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS and SCHEDULING Appointments – No appointments were made at this time. Announcements Morales, Watts, Smith, McClendon, Martinez, and Mayor Nicholls reported on the following meetings attended and upcoming events: • Arizona Western College (AWC) Soiree • Good Morning Yuma • Harvest Preparatory Academy Hispanic Heritage Month Concert • Western Area Council of Governments Monthly Meeting • Annual Transportation Policy Summit • Emmanuel Southern Babtist Church • La Paz Pitch Competition at AWC • Cocopah Indian Tribe Last Beam Ceremony • Opening of New Somerton Family Resource Center • Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization Monthly Meeting • Coffee with a Copy at Mostly Muffins • Yuma County Anti-Drug Coalition Meeting • Amberly’s Place Luncheon • An Evening with Dean Johnson: Shaping the Future of Nursing in Yuma Event • Mayors’ International Bike Ride • Inaugural Domestic Violence Conference • Yuma County Nurses Foundation Meeting • Round Table Discussion with Governor Katie Hobbs • Clarios’ 3 Years Safety Celebration • Southwest Technical Education District (STEDY) of Yuma 10 Year Anniversary Ribbon Cutting • Wheel Fun Bike Club Meeting • Chamber of Commerce Mega Mixer • American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Commission Meeting • Somerton Domestic Violence Survivors Walk and Vigil • Scary and Safe: Trick or Treat • SEMICON West Convention • Intelligent Transpiration Society (ITS) of America Arizona Conference • American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Centennial Celebration • Rural Advisory Board Meeting with Arizona Commerce Authority (ACA) • Elevate Southwest Board Meeting • Sprouts Foothills Ribbon Cutting • Bubba’s 33 Restaurant Ribbon Cutting • Yuma High School Hall of Fame Event • Madrid Chiropractic Ribbon Cutting • Bridget’s Gift Concert and Fundraiser • American Defense Community Association Installation Innovation Forum Scheduling – No meetings were scheduled at this time. Watts suggested looking for an available funding source for emergency funds to help the Yuma Community Food Bank with the impact of the federal withholding of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits and the nutrition program for Women, Infant, and Children (WIC). Simonton confirms some research will be done to come up with ideas of where the funds would come from and the information will be added to the next meeting agenda. Simonton also reminded the community that the City of Yuma and Arizona Public Service (APS) will be help delay payments for water and electricity during the federal withholding. • Summary of current Events Simonton reported the following events: • November 8th – Salute Your Heroes 5K/10K • November 15th – Turkey Trot 5k in partnership with Onvida Health • November 14th – Tribute of the Muses Awards Simonton reminded the community that City Hall will be closed on November 11th in honor of Veteran’s Day, the trash schedule will be affected by the holiday. He also invited the community to sign up for the Neighborhood Leadership Academy to get a behind-the-scenes look at how the City operates. • Call to the Public - There were no speakers at this time. • Executive Session/Adjournment Motion (Morales/Smith): To adjourn the meeting to Executive Session. Voice vote: approved 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:19 p.m. ________________________ Lynda L. Bushong, City Clerk APPROVED: ________________________ Douglas J. Nicholls, Mayor Approved at the City Council Meeting of: ___________________________________ City Clerk: __________________________ Approved at the City Council Meeting of: ___________________________________ City Clerk: __________________________